Who Cares where Barack Hussein Soetoro aka Obama was BORN?
International leftists and anti-American Democratic Socialists like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews(1) care,that’s who! These folks are the real “birthers,” desperate to prove that Obama is US born, with absolutely no help from their political messiah.
They care where Obama was born because they want to make the issue of presidential constitutional eligibility all about birth place, aka“native-born” status, instead of “natural-born” status, which has nothing to do with birth place. Leftists want anyone “born on US soil” to be eligible for the office of president, including “anchor babies” and even 14th Amendment citizens, none of whom are “natural-born citizens” of the United States. They want to rewrite Article II – Section I – Clause V via precedent and so far, they are doing a fine job of doing just that!
Leftists and even many ill-informed on the political right have worked tirelessly to make the issue of Obama’s eligibility all about nothing more than his birth place, alleged to be Hawaii. But birth place is only a demonstration of “native-born” status, not “natural-born” status.
History is Clear
Few modern day lawyers know what the US Constitution says or what it means. But historians do know and history is quite clear. History begins with understanding the difference between “natural law” and man-made statute. The term natural born citizen is based in natural law, and as such, it is a foundation for many man-made statutes.
During the formation of our new country, it was necessary to establish national sovereignty for the purpose of national security. The terms used to accomplish this had to meet standing international laws and treaties of the time, in order for our nation to be recognized by all other nations as a sovereign nation with sovereign citizens and citizens’ rights.
The international standard in place then and now is known as The Law of Nations. We see this term referenced in our US Constitution under Article I – Section VIII – the Enumerated Powers section of our Constitution, wherein it states that Congress shall have the power – “To define and punish - Offenses against the Law of Nations;” – note that Law of Nations is capitalized, referring to the international treaty defining national sovereignty and citizenship the world over.
To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well. –More history here
The Law of Nations treaty is the foundation for our national sovereignty and the term “natural born citizen” is found, and was studied by our nation’s founders, in a book written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. The book was a scholarly in-depth look at what constitutes a sovereign nation, a citizen and citizen rights, recognized throughout the civilized world.
In it, Vattel defines “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” – which became the standard that must be met by anyone seeking the highest office in our land, the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
Book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives. – reads as follows – pay particular attention to the sections in BOLD.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The following section has created confusion for some – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Yet this statement is not in conflict with the balance of the overall section. Both “native” and “natural” born citizens are indeed “citizens” by birth, born in the country (on US soil), of parents (two parents) who are citizens. This means that anchor babies, while “citizens” due to 14th Amendment laws, are neither “native” nor “natural” born citizens. They are only “citizens, via man-made laws related to immigration and naturalization statutes.
However, the sections pertaining specifically to the topic of “natural-born” citizens is very clear – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. - The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; - I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father whois a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Intentional Confusion in the Political Class
The political left, which has worked for more than a hundred years to dismantle the US Constitution via judicial fiat and broad interpretations of constitutional text that borders on subversion and treason, hopes to limit the term “natural-born citizen” to nothing more than birth place, or “native-born” status and they don’t even see a need for a legitimate birth certificate from the applicant for President.
The political right hopes to rewrite the term “natural-born citizen” as well, adding to the “condition of their fathers” requirement put in place by our founders, a birth place and mother’s citizenship
requirement.
requirement.
People who opposed John McCain’s bid for the White House developed this interpretation from thin air for the purpose of disqualifying McCain’s campaign for the Presidency. However, this interpretation is just as improper and the left’s interpretation which asserts that essentially all citizens are natural-born citizens, including 14th Amendment naturalization citizens.
Intentional Misdirection
As Chris Matthews attempts in the MSNBC video clip linked here, leftists continue to speak about whether or not Barack Obama is a legal US citizen. Of course, the debate is not really over whether or not Obama is a legal US citizen, although that might be a valid question under his highly unusual family circumstances.
The constitutional question is based upon whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required for the office of President under Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, which reads - “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (our founding fathers), shall be eligible to the office of President;”
According to the actual definition of natural born citizen placed in our Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the Unites States no matter where on earth he may have been born. At birth, he naturally inherited the “condition of his father,” who was at no time in his life a US citizen.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national, a citizen of Kenya - then ruled by Britain. Inheriting the condition of his father at birth, Barack Hussein Obama was born with the natural citizenship rights of his father, a British subject and citizen of Kenya, not theUnited States.
As such, Barack Hussein Obama was born with foreign loyalties and as a result, he violates the natural born citizen requirement for the office he currently holds and everyone including all members of the US Supreme Court know it. Barack Hussein Obama is precisely the type of citizen the founders were attempting to block from holding the highest office in this land. Yet, Barack Hussein Obama is the sitting President of the United States, in great part due to the intentional misinformation floated and perpetuated on the matter.
No Matter Where He Was Born
Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii?
The truth is - nobody knows because Obama refuses to provide any legitimate proof answering this question, not even a simple birth certificate that every other natural born citizen of the USA has in their possession.
Was Barack Hussein Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro as a citizen of Indonesia and did Obama naturalize to US citizenship upon return from Indonesia?
All evidence available says that Obama was indeed adopted by Lolo Soetoro, making him a citizen of Indonesia at the time. What happened next, nobody knows, once again, because Obama refuses to answer the questions.
Does Barack Hussein Obama have dual or divided loyalties?
Based upon his known family history as well as his focus on international interests versus national interests, one must honestly conclude that Barack Hussein Obama does indeed have at best, dual and divided loyalties.
Does being born in Hawaii answer the question of constitutional eligibility?
No… a birth certificate for Hawaii will result in establishing only the place of his birth, his “native born” status, NOT his “natural-born” status. His natural-born status is already answered in Obama’s own
statements, that he is the son of a foreign national. If a birth certificate shows someone other than Barack Obama Sr. as his natural birth father, then Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud and cannot hold
office for that reason.
statements, that he is the son of a foreign national. If a birth certificate shows someone other than Barack Obama Sr. as his natural birth father, then Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud and cannot hold
office for that reason.
So, I say again, who cares where Barack Hussein Obama was born?
A much better question is who is going to remove this fraudulent thug from office in handcuffs?
If Republicans don’t address this issue upon swearing into power in January, then Republicans are complicit, the constitution is dead, and the people are on their own.
The American patriot either gets this one right, or they get nothing else right. The world is not laughing at Obama, they are laughing at the ignorant spineless Americans who prefer politicking over their own constitution. As long as we fail to clean up our own house, the rest of the world has no reason to respect our opinions on anything else.
We right this wrong, or all wrongs stand! The entire free world is watching and so far, nobody is impressed!
JB Williams
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.